Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant¡¯s intent was to file an application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order denying revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a change in law is not a ¡°fact¡± contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant¡¯s application for revision of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ¡°executable,¡± would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the moving party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was still pending. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.

Article 11.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute provides that in the absence of an appeal, a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment shall be executable following the expiry of the time provided for appeal in the statute of the Appeals Tribunal. Article 12.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute provides, among other things, that a party may apply to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a revision of an executable judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact. It results from the above-mentioned provisions read together that if a party discovers a decisive fact before the expiry of the time provided for appeal, that party may challenge the judgment rendered by...

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/168, by which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.